The influence of somatosensory and auditory evoked potentials on concurrent transcranial-magnetic stimulation electroencephalography recordings
Nahian Shahmat ChowdhuryiD, Nigel C. RogaschiD, Alan KI ChiangiD, Samantha K. MillardiD, Patrick SkippeniD, Wei‐Ju ChangiD, Katarzyna Bilska, Emily Si, David Anthony SeminowicziD, Siobhan M. SchabruniD
Abstract
BackgroundTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) evoked potentials (TEPs) can be used to index cortical excitability. However, it remains unclear to what extent TEPs reflect somatosensory and auditory-evoked potentials which arise from the scalp sensation and click of the TMS coil, as opposed to transcranial stimulation of cortical circuits. ObjectivesThe present study had two aims; a) to determine the extent to which sensory potentials contaminate TEPs using a spatially matched sham condition, and b) to determine whether sensory potentials reflect auditory or somatosensory potentials alone, or a combination of the two. MethodsTwenty healthy participants received active or sham stimulation, with the latter consisting of the click of a sham coil combined with scalp electrical stimulation. Earplugs/headphones were used to suppress the TMS click noise. Two additional control conditions i) electrical stimulation alone and ii) auditory stimulation alone were included in a subset of 13 participants. ResultsSignals from active and sham stimulation were correlated in spatial and temporal domains, especially >70ms post-stimulation. Relative to auditory or electrical stimulation alone, combined (sham) stimulation resulted in a) larger evoked responses b) stronger correlations with active stimulation and c) a signal that could not be explained by the linear sum of electrical and auditory stimulation alone. ConclusionsSensory potentials can confound data interpretations of TEPs at timepoints >70ms post-TMS, while earlier timepoints appear reflective of cortical excitability. Furthermore, contamination of TEPs cannot be explained by auditory or somatosensory potentials alone, but instead reflects a non-linear interaction between both sources. Future studies may benefit from controlling for sensory contamination using sham conditions that are spatially matched to active TMS, and which consist of combined auditory and somatosensory stimulation.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 0
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- The non-transcranial TMS-evoked potential is an inherent source of ambiguity in TMS-EEG studies
Virginia Conde, Leo Tomasevic, … Hartwig Roman Siebner·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Oct 20, 2018
- Characterising the contribution of auditory and somatosensory inputs to TMS-evoked potentials following stimulation of prefrontal, premotor and parietal cortex
Mana Biabani, Alex Fornito, … Nigel C. Rogasch·Imaging NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2024
- Characterizing and minimizing the contribution of sensory inputs to TMS-evoked potentials
Mana Biabani, Alex Fornito, … Nigel C. Rogasch·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Jul 17, 2019
- The correspondence between EMG and EEG measures of changes in cortical excitability following transcranial magnetic stimulation
Mana Biabani, Alex Fornito, … Nigel C. Rogasch·The Journal of PhysiologyPeer-reviewed·Feb 18, 2021
- Identifying site- and stimulation-specific TMS-evoked EEG potentials using a quantitative cosine similarity metric
Michael Freedberg, Jack A. Reeves, … Eric M. Wassermann·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Jan 13, 2020
- Pinging the Brain with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reveals Cortical Reactivity in Time and Space
Sangtae Ahn, Flavio Frӧhlich·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Jan 28, 2021